11 December 2013

Watching Nelson Mandela's Memorial on TV, I couldn't help but think about what the world might have looked like without this man.

I bet you didn't know this but South Africa's Apartheid system was modeled closely on Queensland's Aboriginal Protection Act (1897).

Queensland's Apartheid system enabled the Government to forcibly remove Aboriginal people to reserves and missions - places like Yarrabah, Palm Island, Cherbourg to name a few. It's hard to imagine but the lives of Aboriginal people were controlled down to every element of decision making that citizens enjoy - who you can marry; what job you were to be employed in; where you could travel on your days off; what you could buy with your wages.

It was a devastating piece of legislation, the effects of which we a still dealing with today through inter-generational trauma.

Politicians and public servants spoke about it in those days as being a policy of 'Care and Protection' but hindsight has shown us it was really it was about control and incarceration.

New Protection Acts, modeled on the original 1897 version, were passed through the Queensland Parliament as late as 1971 with hangover policies enduring within the Public Service programs until the late 1980's. And the ideological struggle continues today in 2013.

On this day, I reflect on the memory and legacy of not only Nelson Mandela, but of my grandparents, parents, uncles and aunties, and the other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families who lived through this regime, became political activists and paved the way for social change. I owe them much...

22 November 2013

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (21 Nov, 14:25): I do thank the member for Kennedy for his question and I appreciate his concerns, concerns which are quite general in this House, to ensure that the foreign investment Australia gets is the right foreign investment that supports our national interest, not the wrong foreign investment that does not. This government, this parliament, this nation has long supported foreign investment. Foreign investment has been a very important part of building the strong economy that we enjoy in this country.

Our agricultural industry, our mining industry, our manufacturing industry would not be what it is but for foreign investment. So we do very much support foreign investment, but it does have to be the right foreign investment, foreign investment that clearly is in our national interest, not the wrong foreign investment. We have a strong and a good process to determine which is which. We have the Foreign Investment Review Board, which makes recommendations, and we have the Treasurer, who makes decisions on this matter. I am confident that this process is being amply pursued in the case in question and I am confident that it will give our country the best possible result.

01 November 2013

When I was studying European history as an undergraduate several decades ago, one of the truisms was that the many strategic errors of military generals could often be explained by their tendency to fight the last war again rather than the new one.

Those generals were heavily involved in the previous war, often it was the formative influence in their careers, and they has learnt the lessons of the last war very well. They understood, perhaps hoped, that this war would be a rerun of the last war, a war for which they were - now - well prepared to fight.

I have noticed in the commentary about the ALP's forthcoming decision on carbon pricing - whether to support the new government's repeal legislation - a certain resonance with the attitudes of those generals.

Most commentators seem to accept a trio of fairly dubious propositions:

1. The ALP's defeat at the last election owed a lot to the unpopularity of carbon pricing, perhaps even as Abbott suggests that the 2013 election was a referendum on carbon pricing.

2. The Australian electorate is overwhelmingly opposed to carbon pricing.

3. Thse attitudes are unlikely to change in the future.

Accepting these three propositions allows your average political pundit to project forward three years and pronounce labor dead in the water at the next election if it does not immediately 'repent'.

Even if you accept these propositions, which I don't, there is still a leap of faith required to get to the position that the 2016 election will somehow be a rerun of this year's election.

Victorious political parties, and interest groups, have a vested interest in seeing the next election as a rerun of the last triumph.

The union movement has tried repeatedly to get a redux of the 'glorious' 2007 anti-workchoices campaign off and running, with little success.

I remember the view amongst many senior labor people in 1993 was that this improbable victory had vanquished the Libs for several elections (I have heard tell that at least a few very senior Libs held the same view). Instead, Howard won in a canter in 1996. Did Keating win the 1993 election by default because Hewson was a 'scary' economic radical, a bridge too far for an electorate already scarred by labor's more circumspect embrace of neo-liberal policies.

The ALP came close to beating Howard in 1998 and hoped that its GST roll back scheme might do the trick in 2001. But the world changed, and the big new issue was Tampa and all that has followed from that.

In 2004, the big new issue was 'who do you trust on interest rates', but also 'we will determine etc.' Perhaps, the ALP contributed to its own defeat with some poor policies on health and education, and a nutjob as leader. Who knows the weight we should put on these and other factors.

The popular histories of election campaigns always look more inevitable and straightforward in hindsight than they really are.

As Tolstoy made clear in 'War and Peace', everything is a lot messier on the battlefield than the generals imagine or pretend.

These campaign accounts are invariably written by story-tellers who want to provide their audience with an appealing, coherent narrative.

Yes folks, they say, it is all simple and it all makes sense - just buy my book.

The truth is that it is very difficult to know what was decisive in the last election, or any previous election, there is always a range of issues, and perceptions about parties and leaders.

The one truism seems to be that the next election is never be just, or primarily, a rerun of the past election.

Political strategists, like military generals, should always bear that in mind.

This time round there is an even greater degree of uncertainty because the media environment is changing so rapidly - three years is a long, long time in the media these days. How many of our newspapers will be extinct by 2016?

These media changes will throw up new campaigning strategies and tactics, which will only make those popular election potboilers even more delusional.

As for all those people boldly predicting the issues the next federal election will be fought on ... its just comforting, complacent, column-filling rubbish.

28 October 2013

There's a good review on the Conversation by someone much more familiar with the policy issues involved than me.

I worked for John Dawkins in his personal office from October 1987 for about 3 years as variously a political adviser (dealing mainly with internal ALP matters and links with the ACTU), an adviser on training policy, media relations and finally as senior private secretary.

The first thing to say about working for Dawkins while he was devising and introducing his revolution is that he was a difficult and demanding boss. He treated a lot of people poorly.

Few people get to be Cabinet ministers, even fewer make any real use of the often brief time they have in those privileged positions.

As a staffer, the long-term value of your experience has a lot to do with whether your boss turns out to be one of the few who achieve something significant or one of the many time servers who flap about the place continuously out of their depth in a policy area of which they have only a superficial grasp.

I'm talking here about something far more substantial than the 'canniness' of a Bob Carr.

One of the key traits of the Hawke Government was that it had a greater than usual share of the type of Cabinet minister who has the desire and capacity to do something truly significant.

These substantial ministers were fortunate to have the backing of an excellent prime minister in Bob Hawke who encouraged substantial reform efforts without feeling the need to micro-manage and who frequently protected his ministers from the sort of party and sectional interest criticisms that will often cause a lesser political leader to wilt.

The achievement of Dawkins should also be seen as an achievement by Hawke as well.

Dawkins tried to do something significant in every portfolio he held. He came to education after establishing the Cairns group, an alliance of nations that lobbied for fairer and freer trade in agriculture. Dawkins' achievements for Australian farmers stacks up well against the often lame efforts of his National party predecessors and successors in the trade or primary industries area.

And let's be clear, the Dawkins revolution was not reform by consensus, it was not watered down to an extent that made it essentially meaningless, but broadly acceptable to all stakeholders.

Dawkins took on his critics and sought to overwhem them and out-manoeuvre them.

Dawkins was in a fight that he could have easily lost.

The demands of that fight put a lot of pressure on his staff and his departmental officers, as well as himself.

Political reform is not for the faint hearted. It is not a parlour game.

Dawkins chose to play the game hard.

He was determined to win the argument and get the biggest changes he could.

He would never have been content with 'canniness'.

Dawkins always knew, perhaps intuited, that big changes have the best chance of lasting the distance.

Too often reforms like these get captured by the internal stakeholders, those with most at stake in an immediate sense.

The Dawkins revolution was not about universities, it was about delivering economic and social benefits from a bigger higher education sector to the Australian community.

This approach helped Dawkins win the political argument, but it did not endear him to many people in the higher education sector.

But now it is 25 years later, and about 8 ministers from both sides of politics have succeeded Dawkins as higher education minister.

Despite some tinkering, the essential architecture of the Dawkins reforms are intact.

It is a rare politician who gets to look back with pride over the continuing success of his reforms a few decades later.

As a staffer, last week's festivities confirm my long-held view that you're better off working for a difficult boss than for some plodder who prides himself on his ability to get through his paperwork and turn in a polished (but vacuous) media performance.

When I was working for John Dawkins I never thought about a 25 year celebration and reunion.

But it was a great privilege and pleasure to be there last week.

(the photo is me with Dawkins and his wife Maggie at the reunion last week)

09 July 2013

In organisational terms, the ALP has always been closer to the British Labour Party (BLP) than just about any other national political party.

Both are 'labour' parties in the formal sense, meaning that they were established by trade unions and unions are privileged internally over other groups and individual branch members (through formal affiliation).

The 'labour' model of party-unions links is very different from that which is found in the US Democrats.

In recent decades, leaders of the ALP and BLP have seen party reform (usually meaning reducing the influence of unions) as part of their strategy to lead their parties back into government.

The reason is obvious. Social, economic and technological changes have reduced significantly the political relevance of unions.

No aspiring PM can afford to be seen to be beholden to unions and union bosses.

Rudd's proposal to give branch members a say in electing the parliamentary leader aims at two purposes: it reduces the influence of caucus factional leaders and it reduces the influence of union bosses (because it does not give unions a privileged position in the voting).

In addition, Rudd has made some sensible but not particularly important reforms to clean up the embarrassing NSW branch.

Yet, these changes are well behind the ambitions of Britain's Opposition Leader, Ed Miliband.

Miliband proposes (see here and here) that non-party members should be able to vote in party elections, and that its three million union political levy payers can only be involved in the party if they choose to.

These proposals would take the BLP away from the 'labour' model and move it much closer to the US Democratic party model.

Miliband wants the BLP to be (again?) relevant to the lives of ordinary working people.

Australia has this problem too. Rapid declines in party membership and union densities (proportion of workforce that is unionised) have given union bosses, MPs and factional operatives more power than ever before.

Labour parties have lost the sense of being a movement.

Miliband wants some of that movement energy and enthusiasm back.

Part of this I think is a realisation (partly flowing from Obama's success) that good campaigns actually need people not just focus groups and good advertising,

Some union leaders in both countries will resist the diminution of their own power, smarter ones will recognise that being in government is worth it.

Already, I think we can see that Rudd's reforms so far are a step in a longer process.

About

I have worked in politics, public policy and strategic communications for over 30 years. I was recently awarded a doctorate in Australian politics at the University of Sydney. My thesis was on the (changing) relationship between the ALP and unions. I have been blogging since November 2003 and over the past decade I have written many articles on politics, public relations and social media for newspapers, magazines and websites. I love literature particularly John McGahern and James Joyce.
The header photo is of the Clarence River taken before dawn at Ulmarra in 2012.